Nitro

Yep. They had intel that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. They dismissed it. They had an offer from the Saudi government to hand over Osama Bin Laden and didn't take him... Hence the bombing of the World Trade Center, the first time. The USS Cole attacked while under "high" threat level (4 out of 5 levels). The CIA had intel on two of the high-jackers of the airliners on 9/11/01 and failed to stop them or share the intel with the FBI for investigation. Yep, the government has a REAL good track record in preventing terrorist attacks. Let's create ANOTHER agency, cal

Down your pants, in your purse, in a coat pocket... what difference does it make? A metal scanner will go off and not everyone who has taken a gun to the airport is a terrorist nor has ill-intent. I fly regularly. Before 9/11, when you could walk through the screening and into the terminal to meet or sit with a passenger before they depart, my wife went with me to see me off. She is a concealed carry holder and carries with her most of the time. Not even thinking about it, she went in with me and proceeded through the checkpoint. She sat her purse on the scanner and about the time

You just said it all in that statement. Ya know what? We haven't had these scanners for almost 10 years and not one successful terrorist act. So, now why are the implementing these more intrusive scans? You just said yourself that there hasn't been a successful attack. They've caught many of them that have tried. I don't have a problem with airport security. I have a problem with intrusive security when there is no probable cause to do so. Metal detectors do not invade my privacy any more than a detection dog walking past me. If the metal detector doesn't go off, they ha

He didn't say anything about disclosing HOW they caught someone. But like any government agency, if they had stopped a plot or caught someone, they would darn sure be tooting their horn. Government agencies LOVE to say "look at what we did." It helps them justify their existence. If they had stopped or caught someone, you can be darn sure it would be widely known.

Law enforcement agencies don't jump through hoops to get warrants. If they have intel, they present it to a judge. If it's legit, the judge will issue the warrant. It's very rare that a judge will not issue a warrant to a law enforcement officer who has reasonable evidence that a warrant needs to be drawn. In most cases, the law enforcement official will draw the warrant themselves and all they have to do is get it approved by the judge. There's no hoops to jump through... it's a fairly easy process and most of the time, fairly quick.

My problem is people like you willing to give up Constitutional rights and allow the government to step in and do things they are not allowed to do. I'm not attacking you either. You made a statement and I replied to it and you've responded back several times. In turn, I have responded back. And I have responded to other people... guess you missed that with all your rage. What source am I? Sorry, but I'm not the source. I'm quoting the Constitution of the United States. I haven't made any personal attacks to you... and what has been proven is you have no clue as to what the

Wow! Someone else gets it! I'm glad someone else understand that our Constitution is being crapped on! It absolutely amazes me people are willing to give up their rights. And what is even more amazing to me is that people could care less about the Constitution! What in the hell is wrong with people today? The TSA couldn't stop a terrorist if they wanted too. There's a good chance, if someone walked through with some real firepower or bomb, they'd run like chickens. After all, THEY are not the ones who make the arrest or handle the situation. If something needs action, th

WRONG!!! If the AIRLINE instituted this policy and screening procedure, it would be a contractual agreement between you an the airline. Again PRIVATE CORPORATION. You are right, we are not Constitutionally guaranteed. However, the TSA is NOT a private organization. They are a GOVERNMENT entity and therefore we ARE protected by the fourth amendment. Constant and ongoing searches do not constitute "reasonable likelihood." If they had intel that said a certain date or certain flight, then yes, that would come in to play. But a full time search, by a government agency is most definit

No, a patriotic citizen is one who believes in the way their system was designed and intended to work. Government interference on our Constitutional rights is exactly what a patriotic citizen should be against. It's not fighting the system. It's working with the system and keep that system in check to ensure that those Constitution rights are not violated. I'd love to hear those conversations... They have to be SO knowledgeable. The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution are timeless. They have NOTHING to do with the threats that face our country and have NOTHING to do wit

I'm a real piece of work? You're the one willing to allow the government to take away your 4th amendment right, not me! You obviously don't believe in the Constitution rights of American citizens if you are willing to throw that right out the window. No, I'm not off base... I'm dead on. You obviously don't appreciate all the veterans and active military who fought to preserve the rights of the American people and the Constitution which our country is founded upon. You're the one willing to throw it away... not me.

Did I say that you stated that we should get screened before going in to a market? No, I didn't. You seem to get so offensive about people calling you out on stuff and misquoting you and then you turn around and do the exact same thing? You, in your previous post, stated that these people strap bombs to children and send them in to markets. That example leads directly to the question I asked. If they do it for airplanes and you want screening there, then why not the markets, in the example you gave? It was a simple question... I didn't say you stated that we should or shouldn't...

So, should we also have screenings before going in to the market? Should we have screenings before we go in any place other than our own homes? YOU are willing to sacrifice your freedom to ensure this? Wow! I'm sure you are... but most American's are NOT. This is a direct violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Do I fly? Yes, I do. Do I fly frequently? Yes, I do. I fly enough that my vacation flights are always paid out of Skymiles. I fly a lot. Am I outraged at this? You're damn straight I'm outraged. It's absolutely ridiculous and is just another way

I never understood the idea of an "allowance." I guess, I never understood it because I never had one and as I grew up, I pretty much took on my parents beliefs.... I don't believe in them. I had chores to do around the house. My parents paid my way for EVERYTHING until I got a job in the later years of high school. I never went without food, clothes, or love... but spending money was mine to earn, a lesson they taught me well. My parents weren't rich, but they were never really hurting for money and they wanted to teach me to be responsible for myself and my money... No allow

A buddy of mine (and user on P.com) was in the store when it happened and had the gun pointed at him. I'm not going to say which p.com user it was, unless he gives me permission to do so, but he told me the guy was real nervous and almost dropped the gun when he tried pulling it out. The situation he described, the guy wasn't real bright and he said the shoe store told the police that they had in store surveillance, but only corporate had access to the video and they wouldn't be open again until Monday morning (real good policy, huh?).

Here's something I find funny... Some of you are willing to vote on what Clark Howard has told you about the proposed amendment. Now, along comes Pubby with a post and now you've changed how you are planning on voting. No disrespect to Pubby or Clark Howard, but really, why don't you people decide for yourself how you're going to vote and stop relying on other people to interpret the amendment for you? READ the amendment. Read it thoroughly. Read it again. Voting is a seriously responsibility and too many people vote on what someone else tells them to believe or what

Ahh.... gotcha!

You don't have to log in to view the amendments... If you just go to the Secretary of State's website at http://www.sos.ga.gov/ and click on the Elections tab. Down on the left hand side of the page, click on the " Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Statewide Referendums." If you want a direct link to the PDF that it takes you to, click here: http://qual.sos.ga.gov/bltquest.pdf

Do you know what the Libertarian party stands for? Re-read those three planks and tell me the Libertarian party values don't already encompass them? Yeah, it's a grass roots movement... but they are directly in line with the Libertarian views. The Tea-Party and Libertarians share most of the same views and if they would combine for a better stance, they could easily take back this country and stop both the democrats and republicans from continuing to ruin it.

Sorry, but no, that is not correct. President Roosevelt signed the social security act in to law in 1935. The instant it was signed in to law is when it started. In 1937, money started being allocated and in 1940, the first payout occurred. It works just like a new business. You don't start a new business and open your doors the minute your business is started and take on customers. The business is started the time when the business license is issued. Once you have a building, gain stock, and hire employees, then you can start making transactions. And as I stated before...

See, you read WAY to much in to what someone writes. No, you took offense to something that wasn't there. And social security was started in 1935, not 1937. It was in 1937, when they first started taking money from the people of America to fund the program. But, being the wonderful government they are and not planning on releasing payouts until 1942, the decided to release payouts two years earlier than projected. The program was being milked before it had a reserve to support itself. It was doomed to being with. Add all the years of other people sticking their grubby gov

Well, first off, I'm not a "Tea Partier." I'm a libertarian. The "tea party" are people, by and large (not all), who saw nothing but Republican and Democrats and wanted to start another party based on core beliefs of the the founding of the nation and weren't educated enough to realize that the Libertarian parts is already in place and doing the exact same thing. All they did was create another party that will likely never see a person of their own party in office. Had they realized that Libertarians were there, they could have banded together and made a party that could stand up an

Taking responsibility for my own actions. Not wanting to fund the retirement of others out of my pocket. Not wanting socialism to take over our Republic. Loving the nation that my founding fathers set up and implemented. Yep, you're right... that's absolutely a ridiculous point. What in the hell am I thinking? But since we are talking about intelligence... once again, it's RIDICULOUS, not rediculous.

#1. It's not "all about me." You just can't grasp the concept of personal responsibility and a small government can you? Do you know ANYTHING about the principles this government was founded upon and how it's been bastardized and socialized by numbnuts like you? You're damn right I'm concerned about my own welfare. Whether or not I am concerned with someone elses welfare is MY business, NOT yours and NOT the governments. That is why CHARITIES exist. If I wish to give money to charities or people in need and down on their luck, that is MY right and MY discretion to do so. It

Sure it will have its rises and falls according to trends... However, the base of it will remain steady. People will always buy food. When they have more money, they will buy more expensive foods. When they have less money, they will buy the stuff they need to get by and no more. Same with automobiles. When they have it, they buy more expensive cars. When they don't have it, they buy economy cars. Not only that, it will be a constant flow of income for the government. It will not be a one time a year or one time per quarter event. Plus, EVERYONE will be paying... Yo

Which is exactly a demonstration of our government not being able to run another division efficiently. Nobody wants to pay more than their share of taxes and he didn't do anything that anyone else wouldn't have done. He found loop holes and used them to his advantage. This again is where the fair tax would be most beneficial. If you buy any product, you're gonna pay taxes. Even illegals and others who don't file or pay taxes now will have no choice. The tax is collected at the time of purchase... no loop holes. The fair tax program would eliminate that sort of thing from happening